Snake-Handling Preacher in West Virginia Dies from Rattlesnake Bite

[c.d.]

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/30/11956841-snake-handling-preacher-dies-from-rattlesnake-bite-in-west-virginia?lite

c.d.

[Ally]

Hallelujah. God hates stupidity and the devil loves irony.

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi all

This story has received a lot of play in the Washington Post because the preacher was photographed by photojournalist Lauren Pond for an article in the newspaper's Sunday magazine months before the fatal bite, and again on the very day he got bitten.

Here's the on-line version of the article in today's Post:

"Why I watched a snake-handling pastor die for his faith," story and photographs by Lauren Pond.

Best regards

Chris

[Archaic]

Hi Chris.

That was a very well-thought out and well-written article...more of an essay really. You have to feel sorry for them, and for the journalist.

I'm not going to knock those people for following their faith, strange as their particular faith may seem to me.

But when a man is bitten by a rattlesnake and they watch him gradually losing his life, yet his friends and family refuse to call an ambulance because "it's up to God whether he lives or dies," it calls to mind that other Bible verse, spoken by Jesus, "Thou Shalt not put the Lord thy God to the test." The Bible quite explicitly states that you are not to deliberately place yourself in a deadly situation (such as throwing yourself off a mountain) with the intention of "testing God" by expecting him to perform a miracle and save you.

It seems to me that what's lacking from the snake-handler's type of faith is an understanding and a belief in the God-given free will and intelligence of human beings.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Garry Wroe]

Hallelujah. God hates stupidity and the devil loves irony.

That was more venomous than the snake.

[Beowulf]

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...-virginia?lite

c.d.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oN86d0CdgHQ

Almost heaven, West Virginia...lol!

[Cogidubnus]

Reminds me of the Tom Sharpe book...guess he was truly serpentised!

Dave

[Errata]

It's a sad state of affairs that this is not news to me. In fact it happens all the bloody time around here. Not that I live in some snake handling mecca, I just surrounded on all side by snake handling meccas.

God will not heal you from a rattler bite. He gave them rattles for a reason. That's his version of a "do not operate hair dryer in shower" warning label. His obligation is over.

[Barnaby]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oN86d0CdgHQ

Almost heaven, West Virginia...lol!

Ugh...I went to school there. At least we scored on Clemson again!

[Archaic]

Cognitive Dissonance

The reporter who had spent so much time with this preacher and his family was in a difficult position, having to decide whether she should call an ambulance for him- even over his and the family's objections.

On the one hand, I can see her point that the victim was a competent adult with his own strongly held religious beliefs, and his next of kin were there as well.

I talked about this case today with my friend who's a cop, and she thought the reporter should have called 911 anyway. My friend said if the victim still didn't want medical help once the ambulance arrived, he would then have the right to refuse it. But at least help would be there to give him that option. I agree with my friend; that's what I would have done. My own conscience would have demanded that I at least try to save the injured person.

Mulling it over, I have to wonder if in very small peripheral sects like the snake-holders, individuals members might be extremely unwilling to be the first one to "break ranks" and question long-accepted doctrine.

They belong to a small close-knit group, and even if one of them has internal doubts and wants to call an ambulance, are they going to dare to "question their faith" out loud in front of their peers, who are also their friends, family & neighbors? In a situation like that, it's not surprising that no one would want to go first. I'm sure there were onlookers who desperately wanted to call 911 but feared it would make them look like traitors or unbelievers to the others, so they held back. As a result, the man died.

I wonder what will happen to their sect now? Will someone step forward to assume the role of "preacher" when two generations in a row have been killed by the poisonous snakes they handle?

Best regards,
Archaic

[Garry Wroe]

Probably, Archaic. And the chances are that they'll end up here:-

http://www.darwinawards.com/darwin/

[Ally]

I talked about this case today with my friend who's a cop, and she thought the reporter should have called 911 anyway. My friend said if the victim still didn't want medical help once the ambulance arrived, he would then have the right to refuse it. But at least help would be there to give him that option. I agree with my friend; that's what I would have done. My own conscience would have demanded that I at least try to save the injured person.

Isn't that basically saying "you know better" and "my opinion is worth more than yours"? I mean, if a "rational person" (I put that in quotes because let's face it, no deeply religious person is rational) decides they want to die for their faith, who are you to tell them no? Unless of course we want to just go ahead and admit that the religious are insane and therefore do not have the right to make decisions for themselves.

They belong to a small close-knit group, and even if one of them has internal doubts and wants to call an ambulance, are they going to dare to "question their faith" out loud in front of their peers, who are also their friends, family & neighbors? In a situation like that, it's not surprising that no one would want to go first. I'm sure there were onlookers who desperately wanted to call 911 but feared it would make them look like traitors or unbelievers to the others, so they held back. As a result, the man died.

No the man died because he was a moron. I do not believe that we are obligated to save others from their own stupidity, nor do I believe we are obligated to force people to live if they have chosen to die.

Your life is the one thing you should have absolute say in how it goes and if you want to kill yourself for something stupid, that's absolutely your right.

If someone wants to die because they believe "that's gods plan" well alright then. Let them die happy. Who are we to decide they are wrong? It is their life to do with or not do with as they choose.

[Errata]

Isn't that basically saying "you know better" and "my opinion is worth more than yours"? I mean, if a "rational person" (I put that in quotes because let's face it, no deeply religious person is rational) decides they want to die for their faith, who are you to tell them no?

I don't know it's a simple as that. I would have called 911, despite the fact that I would have known that treatment would be refused. Not because I "know better" than them. It's sort of a conflict of moral obligations. He has a moral obligation to allow god's will to unfold, even unto death. I have a moral obligation to save a life and prevent suffering if I can. Neither of us feel as though we can deny our moral obligations. Calling 911 satisfies my moral obligation, and refusing treatment would satisfy his. In an odd way it would be a compromise between conflicting moral imperatives.

We have this sort of myth regarding our motives in moral or ethical situations. We think we are making decisions for the benefit of others. We aren't. We almost always choose a course of action that satisfies our own needs. Which doesn't mean we choose in favor of ourselves. I take a certain amount of pride in being an empathetic and understanding person. And I have an emotional need to fuel that image. So I will sacrifice of myself for others, not based on the others needs, but based on my need to be empathetic and understanding. We all do it. This preacher didn't die because he was truly convinced it was god's will, although he may have believed that. He died because he needed his belief system to be true, and unquestioned. His identity was based on it. He needed to avoid the unpleasantness of questioning his religion. And he did.

It isn't that there are no selfless acts. They just aren't nearly as common as we think they are.

[Ally]

It's sort of a conflict of moral obligations. He has a moral obligation to allow god's will to unfold, even unto death. I have a moral obligation to save a life and prevent suffering if I can.

You have a moral obligation to save the life of someone who doesn't want to be saved? So if your neighbor was suffering from some dread disease and you walked in after they'd taken poison or something, and they told you to leave and let them die, your moral obligation to save their life outweighs their right to live and die as they choose?

Neither of us feel as though we can deny our moral obligations. Calling 911 satisfies my moral obligation, and refusing treatment would satisfy his. In an odd way it would be a compromise between conflicting moral imperatives.

And if he's unconscious at the time they arrive and can't refuse treatment? Then you have in fact placed your decision of what is "right" for his life over his own.

[tji]

There is also the added thought that if the ambulance is held up waiting for the man to die (surely they would have to wait around in case he changed his mind) then they may not be able to help someone who needs - and wants - medical attention.

Tracy